State v. Lish

Full title: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CAYDE LEE LISH…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Nov 25, 2014

Docket No. 41716 (Idaho Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2014)

Opinion

Docket No. 41716 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 826

11-25-2014

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CAYDE LEE LISH, Defendant-Appellant.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

PER CURIAM

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin Falls County. Hon. G. Richard Bevan, District Judge. Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty-two years, with a minimum period of confinement of ten years, for voluntary manslaughter with use of a deadly weapon, affirmed. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Before LANSING, Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

____________________

PER CURIAM

Cayde Lee Lish was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter, I.C. § 18-4006(1), and use of a deadly weapon, I.C. § 19-2520. The district court sentenced Lish to a unified term of twenty-two years, with a minimum period of confinement of ten years. Lish filed an I.C.R 35 motion, which the district court denied. Lish appeals.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court's discretion. Both our standard of review and the factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014- 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant's entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Lish's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.